THAYYIL BALAKRISHNAN PRADEEP, vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court, having considered the submissions of both parties, was of the opinion that the writ petition could be disposed of with a direction. The Court directed the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (1st respondent) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P3) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Until a decision is taken on the stay petition, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner were to be kept in abeyance. The principle established is that the High Court can intervene to ensure timely consideration of statutory applications for stay, and to prevent coercive action pending such consideration, even when statutory appeals are pending. No issue was expressly left undecided.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Thayyill Balakrishnan Pradeep, is aggrieved by an order of assessment for the assessment year 2015-2016, marked as Ext.P1. He has filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (1st respondent) and a petition for stay of proceedings (Ext.P3). The petitioner apprehends coercive recovery actions before his stay petition is considered. Consequently, he has filed this writ petition before the High Court of Kerala, seeking a direction for the timely consideration of his stay petition.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when statutory remedies of appeal and stay are available to the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the expeditious disposal of his stay petition and a stay on coercive proceedings pending such disposal? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contends that he apprehends coercive proceedings and seeks a direction for the consideration of his stay petition before such actions are taken. He relies on the general principle that a party should not be subjected to coercive measures before their legitimate grievances, including stay applications, are addressed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's contentions. However, the court's disposal suggests that the revenue did not oppose the direction sought by the petitioner.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment relating to assessment year 2015-2016, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P2 A petition for stay of proceedings pursuant to the assessment order has also been filed as Ext.P3. Petitioner apprehends coercive proceedings to be effected even before the petition for stay is considered. Hence, this writ petition.
Having considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents, I am of the opinion that this writ petition itself can be disposed with a direction.
Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 stay petition, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such a decision is taken, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. GOPINATH P.
JUDGE ats
W.P.(C) No.19802/2022
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ratul Boro vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Jashwant Sharma vs. The Union Of INDIA And A4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
- Dipak Saikia vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
